4.6 Article

Volume-dependent effect of perihaematomal oedema on outcome for spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhages

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY
Volume 84, Issue 5, Pages 488-493

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2012-303160

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Columbia University's Clinical and Translational Science Awards from the National Center for Research Resources/National Institutes of Health [UL1 RR024156]
  2. Belgian American Education Foundation
  3. Doris Duke Clinical Research Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction It is still unknown whether subsequent perihaematomal oedema (PHE) formation further increases the odds of an unfavourable outcome. Methods Demographic, clinical, radiographic and outcome data were prospectively collected in a single large academic centre. A multiple logistic regression model was then developed to determine the effect of admission oedema volume on outcome. Results 133 patients were analysed in this study. While there was no significant association between relative PHE volume and discharge outcome (p=0.713), a strong relationship was observed between absolute PHE volume and discharge outcome (p=0.009). In a multivariate model incorporating known predictors of outcome, as well as other factors found to be significant in our univariate analysis, absolute PHE volume remained a significant predictor of poor outcome only in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) volumes <= 30 cm(3) (OR 1.123, 95% CI 1.021 to 1.273, p=0.034). An increase in absolute PHE volume of 10 cm(3) in these patients was found to increase the odds of poor outcome on discharge by a factor of 3.19. Conclusions Our findings suggest that the effect of absolute PHE volume on functional outcome following ICH is dependent on haematoma size, with only patients with smaller haemorrhages exhibiting poorer outcome with worse PHE. Further studies are needed to define the precise role of PHE in driving outcome following ICH.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available